Marois’ win brings to five the number of female first ministers in Canada today (there have only been 10), a remarkable number, given that Canada ranks 45th on the Inter-Parliamentary Union’s list of women in national parliaments, with women accounting for just 24.7 per cent of MPs.
Provinces and territories, however, are a different story. Canada’s largest province, Ontario, has yet to elect a female premier, but women now head provincial governments in Alberta (where Premier Alison Redford and Wild Rose Party leader Danielle Smith fought a tough race last spring), in British Columbia, in Newfoundland and Nunavut.
These five premiers cut a wide political swath, from Marois’s aggressive nationalist xenophobia, to British Columbia Premier Christy Clark’s chippy protectionism, to Nunavut Premier Eva Aariak’s role in the territory’s non-partisan consensus government, to Redford’s red Toryism with a green streak. So what do they have in common besides being women? Well, not that much.
And that is the point about women in politics — they don’t all bring the same ideas or better ideas to the table, but they do bring representative voices of half the population. Without adequate representation of women, as well as men, the pool from which we draw politicians, ideas and inspirations is shallow. And that impoverishes us all.
And, while it is simplistic to expect women to all have the same ideas or the same political ideology or history, there is one thing that many of them have in common — a clear understanding of the importance of reproductive rights. While women are on both sides of the abortion debate (although most Canadians, male and female, generally support a woman’s right to have an abortion), it is unlikely you will hear a female politician call a young woman a “slut” for pushing for better access to contraception or hear a female politician talk about how Bayer Aspirin was used for contraception — “In my day, gals put it between their knees,” as one Republican financial supporter said recently — or refer to “legitimate rape.”
To be fair, that is not language you would expect to come from the mouth of any Canadian politician. There is no war on women here nor steady erosion of access to abortion and family planning, as there has been south of the border. Maternity and paternity leave benefits have helped working parents raise children with some semblance of sanity and balance. In the U.S., a land of extremes, most women are back on the job within weeks of the birth of a child.
Progressive policies, such as benefit and leave policies that support women and men in the workforce, reflect the realities of the 21st century.
The kind of talk that has set the tone for the Republican Party of late might appeal to certain voters, but it drives women away. As veteran Senator Lindsey Graham commented recently, the party is losing its demographic base. “We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.”
The Republican Party seems to have gone out of its way to alienate female voters, something the Democrats have capitalized on — a reported 68 per cent of Barack Obama’s campaign volunteers are women. Meanwhile, the Republicans, the party of Condoleezza Rice, a woman whose many accomplishments — from music and athletics to academics — included an impressive turn as secretary of state, is now known as the party waging war on women. It’s not a sustainable formula, as Graham pointed out.
So what is the lesson here as election season winds down in Quebec and opens full throttle in the U. S.?
Polarization is the enemy of reasonable debate and intelligent policy. There are enough polarizing issues in politics — as we have seen in the Quebec election. The full participation of women in public life should not be one of them.
Original Article
Source: ottawa citizen
Author: Elizabeth Payne
No comments:
Post a Comment